Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

What are you talking about? Criminals sneak into this country every, single day..

They used to. But not today. Today they will all be stopped. Thank goodness we're safe. I saw a car with Ontario plates at WalMart this morning, and I was shaking in my boots. It used to be scary enough when we just had people from the Bronx and South Philly and East St. Louis. But Lord, now we even have people coming from Sturgeon Falls, Ontario and Winkler, Manitoba.

OK, I reread your post. I guess I was thrown off when you said Kansas and Oklahoma are just like Holland and Belgium, only bigger. Whether it is allowed in this forum or not, you do know the difference between a country and a US state, don't you?

Sure. You, however, don't seem to know what the definition of the word "state" is.

Each of the "several states" in the United States is supposed to be its own little country, with it's own Constitution, it's own laws, it's own government, etc. What's been happening in the last century or so is that people like you have been promoting transferring states' rights and powers to the Federal government. Guess what - the feds aren't supposed to have that much power. They're not supposed to have the authority to intrude into our lives the way they do so often these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

Why shouldn't we make sure people are crossing legally? Because our entire nation is founded on the principle that people are presumed to be doing things legally until there is probable cause to believe they are not. Which is why Houston's family of cops has to have a warrant showing probable cause of criminality, before they can break down a door. What is your probable cause that I am illegal, if I drive to Canada for a weekend of sightseeing or shopping? As an American, I don't take it lightly when I am subjected to a presumption of guilt. Especially a presumption of guilt of terrorism.

This is THE lamest argument I've ever seen from you, jtur. And that's saying something. Your positions, while often very wrong, usually at least have some logic behind them. This one falls completely flat. Seriously - it's a joke. I'll rebut your entire premise with one short sentence: You're not being accused of a crime when crossing the border. Get it? See, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applies when you're actually being accused of something. Do you give the cops the same line when you get pulled over and they ask to see your driver license and proof of insurance?

Seriously, jtur. That was a really, really poorly thought out argument.

It's all a gigantic charade, you realize. Because you really aren't being protected very well at all.

After all, given the sheer porous nature of both our Mexican and Canadian borders, any halfway determined person can simply jump a fence or paddle across a waterway. It's really the law-abiding people who will pay in terms of inconvenience.

Case in point? Last month, I went on a routine business trip. I breezed through airport security and flew to Atlanta. In Atlanta, I missed my connecting flight due to a delay, so I had to wait three hours for my next flight. I decided to leave the airport to grab a bite to eat, which meant that I had to go through security once again, taking off shoes and having my bags scanned.

Yet, when I went to wait for my flight, I was rummaging through my computer bag and found my sons POCKET KNIFE. A four-inch long pocket knife. Remember that the hijackers on 9/11 used boxcutters.

So I found a TSA person and handed her my pocket knife. I gave her my info, and gave her my various flight information. Nobody from the TSA has ever contacted me about the incident.

The upshot on this? I went through security twice, once through one of the world's busiest airports, with a knife, and the TSA never so much as blinked.

Sure. You, however, don't seem to know what the definition of the word "state" is.
.

When the state is Kansas or Oklahoma, I think I have a fair grasp. When the state is France, Germany, Cambodia, Paraguy, Tanzania, New Zealand, you will have to excuse me if I think those hava a different status from the Kansas and Oklahoma that you yourself referred to in your post.

If you want to convince anybody here to agree with you that the status of Oklahoma as a state is the same as the status of Poland as a state, I'm going to go and take a nap, and let you have at it. Enjoy.

Of course not. They can't. Not until JDTD gets the law changed the way he wants it to be, which would legalize x and y. Then your cop friends can be ordered by their superiors to kick doors down. What will they do then?

When I had my son at the park a teenagers life ago, I had a talk with a nice older lady who was watching her grandkid play with my son. Her husband had been on the Riverside pd for over thirty years. He had intended to be there until he retired, but they were buying a house away from the area and he was going to quit.

Why? Not prices, since this was in a time when things were farily balanced. It was his job. He'd seen the way it was being militirized, and how it was drawing those who liked that. He saw harrassment because they could that never got reported. He didn't participate but was so sick of it that he was going to blow it all and had applied to a small town pd.

So when the order comes down, who's there? The guys (retired) who never did and didn't think of it or those with the mindset that the image of cops have drawn. When that order comes down do you think they will say no?

I always thought the whole purpose of enlightenment and advancing civilization was to make people's lives better, not worse.

What do you think this is going to do for trade between the two countries.. With the economic climate such that it is these days, i'm thinking this is just going to be an additional hurdle from an economic p.o.v

They used to. But not today. Today they will all be stopped. Thank goodness we're safe. I saw a car with Ontario plates at WalMart this morning, and I was shaking in my boots. It used to be scary enough when we just had people from the Bronx and South Philly and East St. Louis. But Lord, now we even have people coming from Sturgeon Falls, Ontario and Winkler, Manitoba.

Oh...you're right. Criminals, etc. don't cross from Canada. My bad. No one from the areas you listed could possibly be a criminal or associate with one, because you know all of them. Did I say it would stop them all? If I did, I stand corrected.

Oh...you're right. Criminals, etc. don't cross from Canada. My bad. No one from the areas you listed could possibly be a criminal or associate with one, because you know all of them. Did I say it would stop them all? If I did, I stand corrected.

OK, you raised the point, you must have some kind of a concept in your mind about how successful this measure will be. Of all the criminals from Canada that used to get through, just make a rough guess: how many of them will be stopped by requiring a passport? Pick the closest number: [ ] 99% [ ]80% [ ] 60% [ ] 40% [ ] 20% [ ] 1%.

Don't forget that the crime rate in the US is a lot higher than it is in Canada. For every criminal from Canada that can't get into the US, there will be several American criminals who can't go to Canada, and will have to stay home. How will that help?

I just talked to a guy in Maine, he said people in Maine are vigorously fighting against the enhanced drivers license, for the privacy invasion reasons already noted in this thread. Enhanced DL is available only in Washington, Michigan, New York and Vermont.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.